Introduction: When Grandparents Ask a Court to Step In
Few family disputes are more emotionally charged than a fight over who gets to raise a child. When grandparents believe a grandchild’s well-being is at risk, Texas law gives them a narrow path to ask a court for custody. But that path begins with a single, decisive question: does the grandparent even have the legal right to be in court at all?
Per the published opinion, that question, known as “standing,” sits at the heart of B. v. H., a 2026 memorandum opinion from the Court of Appeals of Texas in Austin (No. 03-24-00307-CV). The case shows how the outcome of a custody suit can turn entirely on procedural footing rather than the merits of who is the better caregiver.
As a Dallas divorce attorney, I see families make assumptions about their rights that the Texas Family Code simply does not support. This case is a clear teaching tool. Below, we break down what the court decided, why the two grandparents received opposite results, and what it means for anyone in the Dallas area weighing a custody or conservatorship dispute. For more case breakdowns, visit our family law blog.
Case Background: Two Grandparents, One Grandchild, One Standing Fight
The appellants, R.B. and S.B., are the maternal grandmother and step-grandfather of a young girl referred to by the pseudonym “Sadie” to protect her privacy. Sadie’s mother, T.H., and father, C.H., had divorced in 2020, with both parents named joint managing conservators and the mother given the right to designate the child’s primary residence.
In January 2022, the grandparents filed a suit affecting the parent-child relationship (a “SAPCR”) asking to be named conservators and to limit the parents’ rights and possession. They alleged family violence and a pattern of neglect, and they claimed standing under Sections 102.003(a)(9) and 102.004 of the Texas Family Code.
Their central factual claim was that they had cared for Sadie for long stretches of her life. The grandmother testified that the child lived with them full-time for roughly four to six months in 2020 while the mother recovered from a serious medical event, and again from late 2021 until the suit was filed. She described paying for the child’s health insurance, therapy, groceries, and most of her expenses, homeschooling her, and handling day-to-day decisions.
The trial court was not persuaded. It found the grandparents’ possession was temporary, dependent on the parents’ consent, and insufficient to establish “actual care, control, and possession.” It dismissed the entire suit for lack of standing. Understanding how Dallas child custody disputes hinge on these threshold rules is essential before filing anything.
Legal Analysis: How the Appellate Court Reached a Split Decision
On appeal, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part. It held that the grandmother, R.B., had standing to pursue conservatorship, while the step-grandfather, S.B., did not. To understand why the same family reached two different results, you have to understand the statute.
What does Section 102.003(a)(9) actually require?
At the time of filing, the statute gave standing to “a person, other than a foster parent, who has had actual care, control, and possession of the child for at least six months ending not more than 90 days preceding the date of the filing of the petition.” The Texas Supreme Court, in In re H.S., 550 S.W.3d 151 (Tex. 2018), defined that role as sharing a principal residence with the child, providing for the child’s daily physical and psychological needs, and exercising parent-like guidance and direction.
Critically, the court reaffirmed that this care does not have to be exclusive. A parent does not have to completely abandon their role for a nonparent to also serve in a parent-like capacity. This is a point many families misunderstand, and it is where seasoned counsel adds value.
Can separate periods of care be added together?
Yes. This was the pivotal legal ruling. The parents argued the six months had to immediately precede the filing and could not be stitched together from separate stretches. The court disagreed, pointing to Section 102.003(b), which states that the qualifying time “may not” be required to be “continuous and uninterrupted.”
Relying on precedent including In re Guardianship of C.E.M.-K. and a Dallas Court of Appeals decision, In re M.B., the court combined roughly four months of care in 2020 with a little over two months in late 2021 to reach the six-month threshold. The court also clarified that parental consent is not required to establish standing, and that a “substantial break” between periods speaks to the best-interest analysis, not to standing itself.
Why did one grandparent win and the other lose?
The difference came down to evidence. The grandmother’s testimony painted a detailed picture of her hands-on role: feeding, clothing, homeschooling, managing bedtimes and electronics, financing therapy, and intervening at school. That was enough for the appellate court to find she exercised actual care and control as a matter of law.
For the step-grandfather, the record was nearly silent. There was little testimony about how he personally cared for the child’s physical and psychological needs during the relevant window. Because a rational factfinder could conclude his care fell short of the six-month requirement, the court upheld the dismissal of his claims. He also could not claim standing under Section 102.004(a)(1), which requires a biological relationship within the third degree.
How do the 2025 changes to the law affect future cases?
Timing mattered here in another way. The court applied the version of Section 102.003(a)(9) in effect when the suit was filed in 2022. In 2025, the Legislature tightened the rule: it removed the ability of a child’s “relative” to claim standing under that subsection and now requires a nonparent caregiver to show “exclusive” control rather than merely “actual” control.
Those changes apply only to suits filed on or after September 1, 2025, so they did not affect this outcome. But a grandparent bringing the same facts today could face a much steeper climb. That moving target is exactly why anyone considering a filing should speak with a Dallas divorce attorney who tracks current Family Code amendments rather than relying on older assumptions about grandparent rights.
The grandparent affidavit issue
The trial court had also dismissed the suit because the grandparents did not file an affidavit under Section 153.432 showing that denying them access would significantly impair the child. The appellate court corrected this, explaining that Section 153.432 applies to suits seeking possession or access, not suits seeking conservatorship. Because the grandparents sought conservatorship, the missing affidavit was not a proper basis for dismissal. The court noted a newer statute, Section 102.0031, now imposes a similar requirement on nonparent suits, but it did not apply retroactively here.
The result: the case returns to the trial court so the grandmother can pursue her claim. The court was careful to say it expressed no opinion on whether she should win, only that she has the right to ask. Questions of child support and conservatorship will be decided on remand.
Key Takeaways for Dallas Divorcing Couples
The central lesson is that standing is a threshold that can end a case before the facts are ever weighed. Nonparents who serve in a parent-like role for at least six months can gain standing, and those months need not be continuous. Detailed, specific evidence about each person’s caregiving matters enormously; general claims of “helping out” are not enough.
Parents should also recognize that allowing a relative to care for a child during a medical emergency or other crisis can carry legal consequences later, even without any signed agreement. And because conservatorship, possession schedules, and financial obligations are decided together, families often benefit from involving a Dallas child support lawyer early so the full picture is addressed at once. A knowledgeable Dallas family law attorney can assess these thresholds before anyone files a petition.
Strategic Insights: How Experienced Representation Shapes Outcomes
Looking at this case, alternative approaches might have included building a fuller evidentiary record for both grandparents from the outset, so each caregiver’s day-to-day role was documented rather than assumed. What we’ve learned is that when a claim rests on one person’s testimony, the case is stronger when the pleadings and proof are tailored to the exact statutory elements. Thoughtful preparation, paired with an honest read of the odds, often defines results in Dallas divorce and custody matters.
Talk With a Dallas Divorce Attorney Before You File
Standing questions, conservatorship rights, and grandparent access rules are technical, and the wrong first step can cost you the whole case. For more than 25 years, our firm has guided families across Dallas, including Irving, Richardson, Garland, Mesquite, DeSoto, Grand Prairie, Lakewood, Highland Park, Cockrell Hill, Lancaster, Seagoville, and Duncanville, with honest assessments instead of false promises, a strategic approach balanced with compassion, and transparent communication about realistic outcomes.
If you are searching for a “divorce attorney near me,” or you need help with high-asset property division from our Dallas high net worth divorce team or spousal support questions, schedule a Dallas divorce lawyer consultation today. Speak with a Dallas divorce attorney who will tell you the truth about your case.
