Understanding a Landmark Texas Appellate Decision on Nonparent Rights
When a relationship ends, custody and visitation questions often extend beyond the biological or adoptive parents. In 2025, the Texas Legislature fundamentally changed how nonparents, such as former partners who’ve been involved in a child’s care, can pursue legal rights to a child. A recent Fort Worth Court of Appeals decision provides critical insights into how these new laws work and what they mean for families in the Dallas area and surrounding communities like Irving, Richardson, Garland, Mesquite, and beyond.
Per the published opinion, the case In re S.N. (2025 WL 3713587) addresses a significant procedural hurdle that nonparents must now clear before they can even proceed with a family law suit. Understanding this decision is essential for anyone facing a custody dispute involving a nonparent, whether you’re the biological parent seeking to protect your custodial rights or the nonparent asserting a meaningful relationship with a child in your care. As a Dallas divorce attorney with over 25 years of family law experience, I’ve seen how procedural requirements can dramatically impact custody outcomes, and this new statute represents one of the most important changes to Texas family law in recent years.
The court’s decision raises fundamental questions about parental rights, the burden of proof for nonparents seeking conservatorship, and what evidence actually demonstrates that denying a nonparent access would harm a child. For Dallas families navigating custody modifications or initial custody disputes, this precedent establishes critical standards that could determine whether a case proceeds to trial or is dismissed at the threshold.
The Case Background: A Complex Family Arrangement and Custody Dispute
The facts underlying this case illustrate how modern family relationships often defy traditional structures. S.N. and a nonparent (referred to as “Nonparent” in the opinion) were in a committed relationship during which both adopted children and gave each other conservatorship rights over certain children. This arrangement meant each party had legal rights and responsibilities toward children the other had adopted. However, their situation with A., a child born in 2016, followed a different path.
A. was placed in their home as an infant and was a biological sibling to two children that S.N. had adopted and to whom she gave Nonparent conservatorship rights. When S.N. and Nonparent’s relationship ended in May 2017, both parties initially agreed to a court-ordered possession schedule for all three children, including A.. This agreement, formalized by court order, governed access and visitation for approximately four years.
However, in December 2017, significantly after the relationship ended, S.N. adopted A., establishing herself as his legal parent. In 2019, Nonparent filed suit seeking to become A.’s sole managing conservator, asserting standing under Texas Family Code Section 102.003(a)(9), which historically granted standing to persons who had exercised exclusive care, control, and possession of a child for at least six months preceding the filing. This statute had been used for decades to allow nonparents to pursue custody.
The litigation persisted over six years, with multiple court appearances and two previous mandamus petitions. The most significant development occurred in 2021, when S.N. terminated the possession schedule entirely. From that point forward, the dispute centered on whether Nonparent could maintain any legal access to A. The case exemplifies how custody disputes involving nonparents can consume years of litigation, drain family resources, and create ongoing uncertainty about a child’s relationships and stability.
Legal Analysis: How Section 102.0031 Changed Nonparent Standing Requirements
The Texas Legislature’s enactment of Section 102.0031, effective September 1, 2025, fundamentally altered the landscape for nonparent standing in family law suits. Rather than simply requiring evidence that a nonparent exercised care, control, and possession, the new statute imposes an affidavit requirement at the very threshold of litigation. This procedural gate-keeper mechanism requires nonparents to establish their standing before a case can proceed, transforming how Dallas divorce attorneys and family law practitioners approach these disputes.
The Statutory Requirement and Its Critical Language
Section 102.0031 mandates that any nonparent filing or intervening in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship must execute and serve an affidavit with their initial pleading. This affidavit must attest, based on personal knowledge or reliable representations, that denying the relief sought would “significantly impair the child’s physical health or emotional development.” Critically, the statute further requires that the affidavit contain facts that support this allegation. The court shall dismiss the suit unless it determines, based solely on the affidavit, that it contains facts adequate to support the significant impairment allegation.
The Fort Worth Court of Appeals emphasized that this language mirrors provisions from Texas Family Code Section 153.432, the grandparent access statute that has existed since 2005. Because the Legislature used nearly identical language, courts apply decades of established precedent from grandparent access cases to Section 102.0031. This comparative approach provides important guidance for how courts will evaluate affidavits in future nonparent cases.
The Court’s Findings on Affidavit Sufficiency
In the S.N. case, Nonparent’s affidavit contained emotionally compelling narrative about her bond with A., describing how his teachers noticed he was “happier, more engaged, and better adjusted” when she was present in his life, and expressing her devastation when visits terminated in February 2024. These were not hollow claims, they reflected genuine feelings about a relationship that had spanned nearly a decade.
However, the court found this affidavit insufficient as a matter of law. The appellate judges determined that statements like “denying [A.] the relief sought would significantly impair the child’s physical health or emotional development” were conclusory, meaning they were conclusions rather than factual assertions that could support those conclusions. The court distinguished between what Nonparent felt and what the affidavit actually established as fact. Loving feelings, even demonstrated through years of involvement, do not automatically translate into evidence of significant impairment.
The Fort Worth Court of Appeals cited extensive grandparent access precedent establishing that such conclusory statements are insufficient under Section 153.432. Because Section 102.0031 uses virtually identical language, the same standard applies. This distinction has profound implications for any nonparent case in Dallas, Irving, Richardson, Garland, Mesquite, or surrounding areas. An affidavit must contain specific, concrete facts demonstrating impairment, not emotional testimony about how much the nonparent cares or general statements about the relationship.
Standing as a Question of Law and Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
A critical aspect of the court’s reasoning involves standing itself. The appellate court emphasized that standing is a legal question, not a factual question requiring trial testimony. When standing depends on a statute, the statute itself provides the framework for analysis. Furthermore, lack of standing deprives the trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court has no legal authority to hear the case at all.
This distinction carries enormous weight. A jurisdictional defect cannot be waived by the parties and cannot be overlooked by the judge, even if both parties agreed to proceed. It is, in the court’s words, “the foundation upon which all judicial authority rests.” For a Dallas divorce attorney representing a parent facing a nonparent claim, establishing that the affidavit fails to meet Section 102.0031’s requirements is not merely a procedural victory, it’s a complete bars to the entire lawsuit.
Collateral Estoppel and Loss of Standing Over Time
Nonparent argued that collateral estoppel, the legal principle preventing relitigation of already-decided issues, should prevent the court from revisiting whether she had standing. She pointed to a 2022 order in which an earlier judge had found she met standing requirements under the old Section 102.003(a)(9). Her position: once standing was established, it could not be lost.
The court rejected this argument on two bases. First, a party may lose standing while a case is pending. Initial establishment of standing does not guarantee standing throughout litigation if circumstances or legal requirements change. Second, collateral estoppel applies only between separate proceedings, not within a single ongoing lawsuit. Because Nonparent’s suit was still one proceeding with no final judgment rendered, collateral estoppel was inapplicable.
This holding is particularly significant for Dallas family law practitioners. When the Legislature enacted Section 102.0031 and specified that it applied to all pending cases as of the effective date, parties were required to comply with the new standing requirements. Prior orders based on old standing statutes do not protect nonparents from the new affidavit requirement. For parents in the Dallas area facing older pending nonparent custody claims, Section 102.0031 provides a potential avenue to dismiss those claims if affidavits are insufficient.
The C.J.C. Supreme Court Decision and Statutory Interpretation
Nonparent also relied on the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in In re C.J.C. (2020), which addressed a situation where a nonparent (J.) sought visitation and conservatorship rights after the child’s biological mother died. The Supreme Court found that certain presumptions apply when a parent competes with a nonparent for custody, specifically, presumptions that parents act in their child’s best interest and that it’s in a child’s best interest to remain in a parent’s care.
However, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals determined that C.J.C. addressed best interest and presumptions, not standing. The issue before the lower court in the S.N. case was whether Nonparent had standing to bring suit at all. Standing and merits are separate questions. You cannot reach the question of what’s in a child’s best interest if the plaintiff lacks standing to pursue that question in the first place. The court also analyzed the legislative history and determined that while C.J.C. informed other statutory amendments enacted simultaneously with Section 102.0031, it did not dictate the interpretation of the standing requirement itself.
Practical Implications for Dallas-Area Families and the Best Divorce Lawyer in Dallas
What This Means for Biological and Adoptive Parents
If you are a biological or adoptive parent in Dallas, Irving, Richardson, Garland, Mesquite, or surrounding areas, and someone, whether a former partner, ex-spouse, or other nonparent, files suit seeking custody or visitation, Section 102.0031 provides critical protections. The affidavit requirement creates a threshold challenge that can eliminate nonparent claims before they consume years of litigation and resources.
However, this protection is not automatic. You must identify the insufficiency in the affidavit and file a motion to dismiss. A Dallas child custody lawyer experienced in recent statutory changes knows exactly what to challenge: conclusory statements, vague assertions, and emotional narrative without factual support. The court in S.N. did not find the affidavit insufficient because Nonparent didn’t care about A. or because her feelings weren’t genuine. Rather, the affidavit simply failed to establish facts showing that denying her visitation would cause significant harm to A.’s physical health or emotional development.
What This Means for Nonparents Seeking Custody or Visitation
For nonparents, perhaps a grandparent, former partner, aunt, uncle, or other caregiver, this decision establishes a significantly higher burden. You cannot rely on your years of involvement with a child, genuine feelings of love, or the child’s affection for you. Instead, you must present facts that objectively support the conclusion that the child would suffer significant harm if denied access to you.
This might include medical or psychological evidence of the child’s emotional condition when visits occurred versus when they ceased. It might include testimony from teachers, counselors, or other professionals documenting specific behavioral changes. It might include the child’s own documented statements about emotional distress. However, your own assertions about these facts, without supporting documentation, will likely prove insufficient under Section 102.0031.
A Dallas divorce lawyer or Dallas family law attorney advising a nonparent must provide honest assessment: Section 102.0031 makes nonparent standing substantially more difficult to establish than under prior law. This is not to say it’s impossible, but the burden is now clear and demanding.
The Honest Assessment Approach
After 25 years of family law practice in Dallas, I’ve learned that clients deserve candid evaluation of their positions. The S.N. decision teaches an important lesson about the difference between sympathetic facts and legally sufficient facts. A touching story about a loving relationship is not synonymous with evidence of significant impairment. Courts must apply legal standards, and Section 102.0031 establishes specific, measurable standards that affidavits must meet.
This principle applies throughout family law. A Dallas child support lawyer must distinguish between a client’s genuine financial hardship and facts sufficient to modify child support. A Dallas divorce attorney must distinguish between what would make a settlement preferable and what a court would actually order. The clients who achieve the best outcomes are those working with counsel who provide transparent communication about what the law actually requires versus what they might prefer to prove.
Key Takeaways: What You Should Know About Current Texas Family Law
Section 102.0031 creates a new affidavit requirement that applies to all pending nonparent custody cases. This statute, effective September 1, 2025, fundamentally changed the landscape for nonparent standing. If you’re facing a pending nonparent custody claim, understanding this requirement is critical.
Affidavits must contain specific facts, not conclusions. Statements like “denying this relief would significantly impair the child” are insufficient. The affidavit must contain factual allegations that support this conclusion, specific behaviors, professional observations, or documented conditions.
Standing can be lost during litigation. Prior orders finding standing do not necessarily protect nonparents from new challenges based on current legal standards. When the Legislature enacted Section 102.0031 and made it applicable to pending cases, all parties became subject to the new requirements.
Parents retain significant legal protection. Texas law presumes that parents act in their children’s best interests and that it’s in children’s best interests to remain in a parent’s care. Nonparents challenging parental custody now must overcome both this presumption and the affidavit requirements of Section 102.0031.
Strategic Insights: How Experienced Representation Matters
Litigation strategy in nonparent custody cases has fundamentally shifted. Different approaches might have included earlier engagement with Section 102.0031’s requirements, potentially presenting supplemental affidavits with more specific factual allegations, or gathering documented evidence of the child’s reactions to access cessation. The difference between dismissal and a contested trial often hinges on how carefully counsel approaches threshold legal requirements.
This case also illustrates the value of experienced Dallas family law counsel from the beginning of a dispute. When you recognize that a nonparent may file suit, proactive strategy, consulting with a Dallas divorce attorney experienced in recent statutory changes, can shape how the claim develops and what legal vulnerabilities exist.
What This Means for Your Family: Consultation With a Dallas Divorce Attorney
If you’re facing custody or visitation disputes in Dallas, Irving, Richardson, Garland, Mesquite, DeSoto, Grand Prairie, Lakewood, Highland Park, Cockrell Hill, Lancaster, Seagoville, or Duncanville, the principles established in In re S.N. directly affect your situation. Whether you’re a parent protecting your custodial rights or a nonparent pursuing meaningful access to a child in your care, understanding current Texas family law is essential.
At our Dallas divorce law firm, we provide the kind of transparent, honest assessment that clients deserve. We explain not just what you want to accomplish, but what the law actually requires and what courts will realistically order. We bring 25+ years of family law experience to every consultation, understanding both the legal precedents and the human realities of family disputes.
The difference between successful outcomes and costly litigation often comes down to early strategic consultation. If you’re considering a custody modification, defending against a nonparent claim, or seeking to establish your legal relationship with a child in your care, we encourage you to reach out for a confidential consultation. Let’s discuss your specific situation, explain realistic outcomes based on current Texas law, and develop an approach balanced with both strategic effectiveness and compassionate understanding of your family’s needs.
Contact our Dallas family law office today to schedule your consultation with an experienced Dallas divorce attorney who will provide the honest assessment and transparent communication your situation deserves.
