### NUM BER 13-09- 0030 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 OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
IN TH E IN TE RES T OF M .G. A ND P.G., C HIL DR EN
O n a p p e a l f r o m t h e C o u n t y C o u rta tL a w of K leb erg Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld ez a n d J u st ic es Y añ ez a n d G arza M emo rand um Opin ion b y C hie f J us tice Vald ez App ellant s, Delia and Emilian o Garza, app eal f rom th e trial co urt’s d ismissal of their sui t s eeki ng adopt ion of thei r g re at- g ra ndchi ldren. Di smi ss al w as predi cat ed on the t ri al
cour t’ s d eter minat ion that

the Gar z as did not hav e s tandi ng under Tex as Fami ly

C ode
sec ti on 102. 006. See T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN
. § 102. 006 ( Ver non 200 8)

. By thei r sol e i ss ue, the G arz as cont end t hat t hei r re lat ion shi p to the chi ldren g iv es them s tandi ng to br ing su it

. W e affi r m.T o p ro te c t t h e p riva c y o f th e m i n o r c h i l d re n , w e re fe r t o th e m b y th e i r i n i ti a l s . See T EX
. F AM
. C OD E 1 A NN
. § 1 09

. 00 2(d ) ( V ern on 20 08 ); T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 9. 8(b )( 2).

T he subst ance oft he pet i t i on, as wel l as t he subst ance oft he hear i ng, per t ai ned t o sect i on 1 02. 004 2 o f th e fa m i l y c o d e . See T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN
. § 102. 004 ( Ver non Supp. 200 9)

. Sect i on 102. 004 set s f or t h who m a y fi l e a n o rig i n a l s u i t re q u e s ti n g m a n a g i n g c o n s e rv a to rs h i p . I d. Speci f i cal l y , sect i on 1 02. 004 pr ov i des: ( a)

. . . [ A] gr andpa r ent , or ano t her r el at i v e of t he ch i l d r el at ed wi t hi n t he t hi rd degr ee b y c o n s a n g u in ity, m a y f ile a n o r i g i n a l s u it r e q u e s tin g m a n a g in g c o n s e r v a to r s h ip ifth e r e is s a ti s fa c to ry p ro o f to th e c o u rt th a t:

( 1) t he or der r equest ed i s necessar y because t he chi l d’ s pr esent ci r cum st ances w o u l d s i g n i fic a n tl y i m p a i r th e 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 d e v e l o p m e n t

. . . . I d. 2 I. B A CKGRO UND On May 28, 2008, the tr ial courtentered an order termi nati ng the parental r ig hts of M. G. and P. G.’ s b iol og ic al parents and appoi nti ng the Tex as Dep artment of Fami ly and Protec ti v e Ser

v ic es (“ the D epar

tment” ) as per manent mana g ing co nser v ators o f the chi ldren. O n J une 4, 2008, the chi ldren’ s mat er nal g re at- g ra ndparents , t he Ga rz as, fil ed

1 thei r “O ri g ina l Peti ti on i n Sui t Affect ing the Parent- Chi ld Rel ati onshi p” req uest ing thatthe
cour t app oin t t hem as temporar y j oin t manag ing co nser

v ators. After condu cti ng a heari ng

2
o n t h e G a rz a s ’ s p e t i t i o n , t h e t r i a l c o u rt fo u n d t h a t t h e G a rz a s l a c k e d s t a n d i n g to sue beca use th ey fai le d t o esta blish tha t the children’s prese nt circum stan ces w ould impa ir the ir phy sical hea lth or em otion al developm ent . On Sep tem ber 19 , 200 8, t h e t ri a l co urt entered an order

di smi ss ing the Gar

z as’ s p eti ti on w it hout preju dic e. On N ov ember 21, 2008, the Gar z as filed a do cumententi tl ed “ Amended P eti ti on for Ado pti on of C hil dr en,” i n w hic h the y so u ght t o ga in manag ing co nser v atorshi p and ado pt th e children

. A t the h earing o n the p etition , the Garz as explained to the trial court that they w ere proc eedi ng under sec ti on 102.005 of the family

code, w hic h sets forth w hoS ect i on 102. 005 pr ov i des t hat an or i gi nal sui t r equest i ng a n ad opt i on m ay be f i l ed b y an “ adul t who 3 t he co ur t det er m i nes t o ha v e ha d sub st ant i al past cont act wi t h t he chi l d suff i ci ent t o war r ant st andi ng t o do s o.” I d. § 1 02

. 00 5(5 ) ( V ern on S up p. 20 09 ). 3 mayfil e an or ig ina l sui t re q uest ing an adopti on. See i d. § 102 .00 5 (Verno n Sup p. 20 09). 3 T he trial cou rt h e a rd evi den ce on w het her the Garz as ha d en gaged in substa ntial pa st cont act w it h the chi ldren. After ex press ing co ncer n tha t t he Ga rz as’ rela ti onshi p as g re atg ra ndparents to the c hil dren prec l uded t hem from fil ing an o ri g ina l sui t req uest ing adopt ion , the t ri al cour

t req uest ed th at t he par ti es submi t br iefin g di sc uss ing w hether the li mita ti ons on sta ndin g set fo rth in section 102 .00 6 of the fam ily

code app lied to great-grandp aren ts. See i d. § 102. 006. On F ebr uar

y 18, 2009, the t ri al court d is mis sed the G arz as’ peti ti on i n an order sta ti ng that the Garz as lac ked “s tandi ng under [sec ti on] 102.005 of the Tex as Fami ly C ode becau se [the Gar

z as] as g re at[- ]g ra ndparents are ex cl uded f ro m fili ng for st andi ng under [ s e c t i o n ] 1 0 2

. 0 0 6 ( c ) o f t h e T e x a s F a mi l y C o d e . ” T h e G a rz a s fi l e d a m o t i o n fo r n e w t r ial that w as subs eq uentl y

deni ed. This appeal ens ued.

II. S TA NDI NG By the ir sole issue, the Garz as cont end tha t the trial court erred in dismissing the ir peti ti on for adopti on becaus e their standi ng under sec ti on 102.005 of the family

co de i s n ot li mite d by

se cti on 102. 006. A . St and ard o f Rev iew Beca use sta ndi ng i s a co mponent of subj ectmatte r jur is dicti on, w e rev iew a t ri al
cour t’ s dis mis sal for l ack

of sta ndi ng de n ov o. See Tex. Ass’ n of Bus. v. Tex. Ai

r Con tr ol Bd. , 852 S.W .2d 440, 446 (Tex . 1993). W e tak e the factual al leg ati ons in the p eti ti on as4

tr ue and cons tr ue th em i n fav or of the p lea der

. Id. B. A pp licab le L aw Sect ion 102 .00 5 of

the T exas FamilyCode de tails the stand ing requireme nts for a person fili ng a pe ti ti on for adopti on. See T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN . § 102.005

. Al thoug h an
or ig ina l sui t req uest ing adopt ion may be fil ed by

an “ adul t w hom the cour t deter mines to have had substa ntial pastco nta ct w ith the ch ild su f f icient to w arrant sta ndin g to do so,” id. , T exas Family Code section 102 .00 6(a) limits stan ding w here the paren t-child relation ship has been t er minat ed. See i d. § 102. 006( a)

. Generall y , rela ti v es of ter minat ed parents do not h av e s tandi ng to file an or ig ina l sui t c oncer nin g the chi ld. I d. § 1 0 2.0 06(a )(3). How ev er , s ect ion 102. 006( c) prov ide s t he foll ow ing ex cept ion to thi s l imi tati on: The li mita ti ons on fil ing su iti mp o se d by thi s s ect ion do n ot ap ply to

. . . a g ra ndparent o f the chil d . . . if the .

. . g ra ndparent .

. . fil es an or ig ina l sui t or a s uitfor modi ficat ion re q uest ing manag ing co nser v atorshi p of the chi ld not lat er than the 90th day

after the date the p arent- chi ld re lat ion shi p betw een the c hil d and the p arent i s t er minat ed i n a su it f iled by the Dep artment of Fam ily and Protect iv e Services requestin g the t ermin ation o f t he p aren t-child re lat ion shi p. Id. § 102 .00 6(c). C. A nal ysis T he Ga rz as asse rt that th e ter m “grandp aren ts” as used in section 1 02. 006 (c) inc lud es g re at- g ra ndparents

. How ev er , t he D epar tment cont ends that the G arz as do not have stan ding beca use: ( 1) “[s]ub-sect ion 10 2.0 06(c) expressly exe m pts grandp aren ts, not g re at- g ra ndparents , from the l imi tati ons on standi ng in secti on 102. 006[( a) ]” ; and ( 2) the G arz as faile d to file their petiti on for

adoption of

the chi ldren “w it hin ninety day s o f the date the t ri al cour

t t er minat ed th e p a re n ta l rig hts of the s ubj ectch il dren’ s b iol og ic al5

parents .” As a thres hol d iss ue, w e det er mine w hether the Gar z as ti mely

fil ed th eir

peti ti on fo r a d o p t i o n. Se e T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN . § 102.006 (c ); see a lso In re A.M. , N o. 04 -0 9- 00069- CV , 2010 Tex

. App. LEX IS 1250, at **9 -1 0 (Tex . Ap p.–San Ant oni o F eb. 2 4, 20 10, pet. filed ). The parental r ig hts of the c hil dren’ s p arents w ere ter minat ed on Ma y 28, 2008. The Gar z as filed an “ Or ig ina l Peti ti on in Su itAffect ing the Parent- Chi ld Rel ati onshi p” on J une 4, 20 08, in w hich th ey sought join t ma naging co nservatorship of the childre n. Altho ugh this sui t w as filed w ell w it hin the n ine ty -d ay st atuto ry

per iod se t outi n s ect ion 102. 006( c) , t he tr ial c o u rt d i s mi s s e d t h e s u i t w i t h o u t p r ej u d i c e o n S e p t e mb e r 1 9 , 2 0 0 8 , a ft e r fi n d i ng that the G arz as lac ked sta ndi ng bec ause they w ere unabl e to prov e that the c hil dren’ s p re sent ci rc umstan ces w oul d s ig nific antl y i mpair the chi ldren’ s h eal th or emoti onal dev elo pment. If the s tatut e of li mita ti o n s h a s n o t ru n, a dis mis sal w it hout preju dic e does not pr ev ent a pla int iff from re fili ng an a cti on, see W ebb v . Jor ns , 4 8 8 S

. W

. 2 d 4 0 7 , 4 0 9 (T e x. 1972) ; how ev er , a dis mis sal w it hout preju dic e does not tol l the stat ute of li mita ti ons. See Cr onen v . Cit y o f Pa saden a , 835 S.W .2d 206, 210 (Tex

. App.–H oust on [1s t Di st. ] 1 9 92,
no w ri t) , disap prove d on othe r g roun ds by Le wis v. Blake , 8 7 6 S

. W

. 2 d 3 1 4 , 3 1 5 (T e x. 1994)

. Thus, a ss u m ing , w it hout deci din g , t hat s ect ion 102. 006( c) appl ies to g re atg ra ndparents , t he Gar

z as w er e not precl uded from re fili ng an a cti on to obta in per manent manag ing co nser

v atorshi p or

to adopt thei r g re at- g ra ndchi ldren as l ong as the new ac ti on
w as f iled w ithin th e stat uto rily man dat ed ninety-day time f rame af ter the children’s pa rents’ ri g hts w ere ter minat ed. See i d. On N ov ember

21, 2008, the Gar

z as filed a pet it ion enti tl ed “ Amended P eti ti on forAdopt i on a nd p er m anent m an agi ng co nser v at or shi p ar e t wo al t er nat i v es t hat m ay be pur sued by 4 a p e rs o n w h o w i s h e s to p ro v i d e a p e r m a n e n t h o m e fo r a c h i l d

. See Adopt i on o r Per m anent M anagi ng C on s erva t ors hi p, htt p:/ / w w w . dfp s . s t ate. t x . us / c hi l d_ pro t ec t i on / ad op t i on / pm c . as p (l as t vi s i t ed Ju ne 22 , 20 10 ). Adopt i on “ pr ov i des t he g r eat est l egal pr ot ect i on be cause i t gi v es a chi l d a new f am i l y wi t h t he sa m e l egal s t an di ng as a b i rt h fa m i l y . ” I d. “ W hen som eone ot her t han a par ent i s nam ed as [ pe rm an en t m an agi ng c on s erva t or] fo r a c h i l d, he or sh e i s gi ven ce rt ai n ri gh t s an d d uti es rega rdi ng t he ch i l d.” Id

. A per m anent m a n a g i n g c o n s e rv a to r’s rig h ts a n d d u ti e s a re d e te rm i n e d b y c o u rt o rd e r, see id. , and sect i on 153. 371 oft he T e x a s F a m i l y C o d e . See T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN
. § 1 53

. 37 1 (V ern on 20 08 ). 6 Adopt ion of Chi ldren,” i n w hic h the y so ug ht, for th e first ti me, to adoptthei r g re atg ra ndchi ldren. Throug h thi s p eti ti on, t he Ga rz as soug ht t o es tabl is h s tandi ng to file sui t t o ado pt, rath er than serv e as ma naging conservators of their great -g rand children

. Becau se 4
w e l ook to t he s ubst ance of a peti ti on and not i ts ti tl e to de ter mine it s e ff ect , see Sur gitek
v . A b el , 9 9 7 S .W .2d 5 98, 6 01 ( Tex . 199 9) ; Soss i v. W il lette &Guer

ra , LLP , 139 S.W .3d 85, 89 (Tex . App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2004, no p et.) , w e c oncl ude t hat t he Ga rz as’ N ov ember 21, 2008 peti ti on cons ti tutes an or ig ina l peti ti on, rather than an “ amended” peti ti on. See T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN . §§ 102.004 ( dis cus si ng w ho may fil e an or ig ina l sui t req uest ing manag ing co nser

v atorshi p) , 102 .005 (d is cus si ng w ho may fil e an or ig ina l sui t req uest ing adopti on)

. As prev iou sl y note d, as sumi ng se cti on 102. 006( c) appl ies to them, the G arz as
w er e ent it led t o f ile a n or ig ina l peti ti on s eeki ng adopt ion not lat er than the nin eti eth d ay after the d ate t he parent- chi ld re lat ion shi p be twe en th e c hil d and bio log ic al parent w as ter minat ed. Beca u se t h e ir p e ti ti on for adopti on w as filed al most si x months after

the ter minat ion of the pare nt- chi ld rela ti onshi p, the f il ing of the Gar z as’ petiti on fell outsi de of the n ine ty -d ay

ti me per iod se t fort h i n s ect ion 102.006( c)

. See T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN . § 102.006 (c ). Und er

a pla in readi ng of

the sta tute, the Gar

z as lac ked sta ndi ng to ini ti ate a sui t for adopti on byf il ing after the nin eti eth d ay

after the date of paren tal ter minat ion

. See id. ; see als o In re A.M. , 201 0 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 1 250, at **1 0- 11 (n oti ng thatmater nal auntH av i ng d et er m i ned t hat t he G ar z as l acked st andi ng by f i l i ng sui t l at er t han t he ni net i et h day aft er t he 5 par ent
- chi l d r el at i onshi p was t er m i nat ed, w e ne ed n ot det er m i ne whet her t he G ar z as’ st at us as g re a t-g ra n d p a re n ts p re c l u d e d th e m fro m i n i ti a ti n g a s u i t fo r a d o p ti o n . See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47. 1. 7 and mat erna l g rand mo the r fa iled to m eetthe sta tu to r y stand ing requireme nts of 102 .00 6(c)
w here the y

so ug ht adopti on of t he subj ectch il dren more tha n ni nety day s a fter t er minat ion of the parent- chi ld re lat ion shi p)

. W e ov er ru le the G arz as’ so le is sue. 5 III . C ONCL US I ON W e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

_____________________ ROGEL IO VAL DEZ, Chief Justice Del iv er ed and filed the 15th day of Jul y , 201 0.