Court Opinion

ID: 9406565
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-01 06:11:03.979433+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:31.434573
License: Public Domain

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

                      MEMORANDUM OPINION
      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 parent-
child 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
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
                                            2
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.
                                                  3
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).
                                                  4
      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
                                          5
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.

                                            6