Opinion ID: 1666410
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: managing conservatorship

Text: The presumption that the best interest of the child is served by awarding custody to the parent is deeply embedded in Texas law. See Lewelling v. Lewelling, 796 S.W.2d 164, 166 (Tex.1990) (citing Mumma v. Aguirre, 364 S.W.2d 220, 221 (Tex.1963) and Legate v. Legate, 87 Tex. 248, 28 S.W. 281, 282 (1894)). The parental presumption is based upon the natural affection usually flowing between parent and child. See Taylor v. Meek, 154 Tex. 305, 276 S.W.2d 787, 790 (1955). The Legislature codified the presumption in Chapter 153 of the Family Code, which governs original custody determinations: Unless the court finds that the appointment of the parent or parents would not be in the best interest of the child because the appointment would significantly impair the child's physical health or emotional development, a parent shall be appointed sole managing conservator or both parents shall be appointed as joint managing conservators of the child. Tex. Fam.Code § 153.131(a) [2] . Thus, under Chapter 153, the nonparent can rebut the parental presumption by showing that the appointment of the parent would significantly impair the child's health or development. See Brook v. Brook, 881 S.W.2d 297, 298 (Tex.1994). Chapter 153 also provides that the parental presumption is rebutted if the natural parent has voluntarily relinquished actual care, control, and possession of the child to a nonparent for one year or more and the appointment of a nonparent as managing conservator is in the best interest of the child. Tex. Fam. Code § 153.373. A court's primary consideration in any conservatorship case shall always be the best interest of the child. Tex. Fam.Code § 153.002. After a court makes an original custody determination, a party may move to modify that determination. See Tex. Fam.Code § 156.002. Section 156.101 provides the grounds for modifying conservatorship: (a) The court may modify an order that designates a sole managing conservatorship of a child of any age if: (1) the circumstances of the child, sole managing conservator, possessory conservator, or other party affected by the order have materially and substantially changed since the date of the rendition of the order; and (2) the appointment of the new sole managing conservator would be a positive improvement for the child. Tex. Fam.Code § 156.101(a). Thus, any person who seeks to modify an existing custody order must show (1) changed circumstances and (2) that modification would be a positive improvement for the child. Chapter 156 does not provide for a parental presumption in modification suits. Likewise, this Court has held that the parental presumption does not control in modification suits. See Taylor, 276 S.W.2d at 790.