Opinion filed July 30 , 201 5



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ 

### No. 11

- 1 5

- 00 0 09

- C V

__________


### IN THE INTEREST OF M.M .S

. , A CHILD

On Appeal from the 29th District Court Palo Pinto County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. C45736

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N This is an appeal from an order in which the trial court terminat ed the parental rights of M.M .S .’s mother and father and appointed the Department of Family and Protective Services to be the permanent managing conservator of
M.M.S. The mother filed a notice of appeal. We affirm

. On appeal, the mother presents two issues for review

. In both issues, the mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence regarding the trial court’s refusal to appoint the intervenor grandparents as conservators or, alternatively, permit
the m to continue visitation with M.M.S. The mother does not challeng e the trial2

court’s order insofar as it terminated her parental rights. Furthermore, the intervenors have not filed an appeal. We are of the opinion that the mother lacks standing to assert th e complaint s made in both of her issues because s he has not c ontest ed the termination of her parental rights and because she has no justiciable interest in the intervenors’ access
to the child

. By failing to challenge the termination of her parental rights, t he
mother has become a former parent with no legal rights with respect to M.M .S.
See T EX

. F AM

. C ODE A NN

. § 161.206(b) ( West 2014 ) (order terminating parent

child relationship divests the parent of all legal rights and duties with respect to the child). Th e refore, the mother has no standing to challenge th e portion of the
termination order that relates to the appointment of conservator s f or M.M .S. See
In re Y.V. , No. 02

- 12

- 00514

- CV, 2013 WL 2631431, at *1

– 2 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth June 13, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) ; In re A.S. , No. 10

- 09

- 00076

- CV, 2009
WL 348 8336, at *4 (Tex. App.

— Waco Oct. 28, 2009, pet. denied) (mem. op.) ; In
re H.M.M. , 230 S.W.3d 204, 204

– 05 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet.); see also In re R.A. , No. 07

- 08

- 0084

- CV, 2009 WL 77853, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo Jan. 13, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.). Nor does the mother have standing to challenge the trial court’s refusal to permit the intervenors to have visit ation with

or access to the child. See In re H.M.J.H. , 209 S.W.3d 320, 321 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2006, no pet.) ( “[A]n appealing party may not complain of errors that do not injuriously affect it or that merely affect the rights of others.” (alteration in original) (quoting Torrington Co. v. Stutzman , 46 S.W.3d 829, 843 (Tex. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted) )

. Moreover, even if the mother does have standing to challenge the trial
court’s rulings as to conservatorship, her contentions are without merit. When a trial court terminates the parent

- child relationship with respect to both parents, the

court must appoint a suita ble and competent adult , the Department , or a licensed3

child

- placing agency as the managing conservator of the child. F AM

. § 161.207

. The findings necessary to appoint a nonparent as sole managing conservator need only be established by a preponderance of the evidence. Lewelling v. Lewelling , 796 S.W.2d 164, 167 (Tex. 1990). Consequently, we review a trial court’s conservatorship decis ion under a less stringent standard of review than the standard
for termination. In re J.A.J. , 243 S.W.3d 611, 616 (Tex. 2007). A conservatorship determination is subject to review for an abuse of discretion and may be reversed only if that determination was arbitrary and unreasonable. Id. The trial court’s determination in this case was not arbitrary or unreasonable.
The evidence at trial indicated that the intervenors would not be appropriate conservators for various reasons, including the conditio n of their home and the fact
that , in their petition to intervene, the y listed their own address as the address at
which the father could be served. The intervenors had been informed that the
father was not to have any contact with M.M.S. other than visit ation supervised by the Department. M.M.S.’s father used methamphetamine daily and admitted to “handling so much methamphetamine [] that his pores were oozing methamphetamine.” Because t he record in this case supports the trial court’s
determinations as t o conservatorship , t he trial court did not abuse its discretion.
Both of t he mo ther’s issue s on appeal are overruled

. We affirm the order of the trial court.

JIM R. WRIGHT
CHIEF JUSTICE July 30, 2015
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson , J. , and Bailey, J.