Standing Under Family Code Section 102.003(a)(9) | In re B.M., III (2026)

In the Interest of B.M., III, a Child, 06-26-00015-CV, August 12, 2026.

On appeal from 324th District Court, Tarrant County, Texas

Synopsis

A maternal uncle had standing under Texas Family Code Section 102.003(a)(9) because the evidence showed he exercised actual care, control, and possession of the child for the requisite six-month period ending within ninety days before suit. The father’s competing claim for conservatorship did not defeat that statutory standing, so the trial court’s conservatorship judgment in favor of the uncle was affirmed.

Relevance to Family Law

This opinion matters in SAPCR and post-death custody litigation because it reinforces that standing under Section 102.003 is claimant-specific and evidence-driven, not defeated merely because a surviving parent also seeks managing conservatorship. For family-law litigators, the case is especially useful in disputes arising after a parent’s death, in de facto caregiver cases, and in litigation where relatives have functioned as the child’s day-to-day custodians while the legal parent remained intermittent, absent, or impaired by criminal, substance-related, or other instability. It also has crossover relevance in divorce and property-related family litigation because the record included disputes over the child’s property interests and the parent’s mishandling of those funds, facts that shaped the conservatorship analysis even though they did not create standing by themselves.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

After the child’s mother died in 2023, both the child’s father and maternal uncle sought sole managing conservatorship. The uncle filed a SAPCR alleging standing based on his extended co-residence with the child and mother and on his status as a relative within the third degree, coupled with allegations that the father’s appointment would significantly impair the child’s physical health or emotional development.

The factual theme that carried the standing issue was continuity of caregiving. According to the record, the child and mother had lived with the uncle since 2017, and the child continued living with the uncle after the mother’s death. The uncle testified he had been with the child throughout the child’s life, that they were bonded, and that the child remained integrated into a stable family network near the uncle’s home. Evidence also showed the child had medical issues, including asthma and a horseshoe kidney, and that the uncle provided regular care and school stability.

The father, by contrast, was burdened by substantial adverse evidence. The record reflected a murder conviction, probation violations, pending criminal matters, allegations involving child pornography, contempt findings tied to funds belonging to the child, inconsistent information about residence, missed visitation, and evidence of physical discipline that left a mark on the child. A court-appointed custody evaluator recommended that the child remain with the uncle. The trial court named the uncle sole managing conservator and the father possessory conservator, and the father appealed on standing grounds.

Issues Decided

• Whether the maternal uncle had standing under Texas Family Code Section 102.003(a)(9) to bring a SAPCR seeking conservatorship based on actual care, control, and possession of the child for at least six months ending not more than ninety days before filing suit.
• Whether a surviving parent’s own request for conservatorship defeats or negates a nonparent relative’s standing under Section 102.003(a)(9).
• Whether the trial court’s conservatorship judgment could be affirmed once statutory standing was established on the uncle’s evidence.

Rules Applied

Standing in a SAPCR is a component of subject-matter jurisdiction and is reviewed de novo. The court treated standing as dependent on the statute invoked and the proof supporting it.

The key rule was Texas Family Code Section 102.003(a)(9), which grants 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 ninety days before the date of filing. In applying that standard, Texas courts distinguish between formal legal rights and actual lived caregiving. The inquiry focuses on real-world possession and parental-type responsibility, not merely periodic contact or family relationship.

Note: Effective September 1, 2025, this statute changed to require exclusive caregiving. See Acts 2025, 89th Leg., R.S., Ch. 402 (H.B. 2350), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2025.

The opinion also reflects the broader proposition that multiple parties may independently possess standing in the same SAPCR. A parent’s superior substantive claim, presumptions favoring a parent, or competing request for conservatorship goes to the merits of conservatorship, not to whether another claimant can cross the jurisdictional threshold of standing under a statute.

The court’s discussion also drew from prior standing authorities emphasizing de novo review and the requirement that the claimant prove the facts conferring standing. Although the opinion excerpt references former Section 102.003(a)(11) and residence-based standing after a parent’s death, the holding presented here centers on Section 102.003(a)(9)’s actual-care-control-possession pathway.

Application

The court’s reasoning turned on the difference between standing and ultimate conservatorship entitlement. The father attempted to collapse those concepts by arguing, in substance, that because he was the surviving parent and was seeking conservatorship himself, the uncle could not maintain the suit. The court rejected that approach. The statutory standing inquiry asked whether the uncle himself established the required six months of actual care, control, and possession ending within ninety days before filing. On this record, he did.

The evidence showed much more than occasional family involvement. The child and mother had lived with the uncle for years. The uncle’s home functioned as the child’s daily environment. After the mother’s death, the child remained with the uncle. The uncle described a continuous caregiving role, and other evidence corroborated that the father had not been the child’s consistent day-to-day caretaker. The custody evaluator’s testimony, the testimony regarding missed visitation, and the evidence of the child’s continuing routines all reinforced the trial court’s conclusion that the uncle’s role was not incidental but parental in practice.

Just as important, the father’s competing conservatorship claim did not erase those jurisdictional facts. The court treated the father’s status as surviving parent as relevant to the merits and presumptions governing final conservatorship, but not as a bar to the uncle’s standing once the statute’s factual predicates were met. In other words, the uncle did not need to prove the father had no claim; he only needed to prove his own statutory basis to file.

Holding

The court held that the uncle had standing under Texas Family Code Section 102.003(a)(9) because the evidence showed actual care, control, and possession of the child for at least six months ending not more than ninety days before suit. That satisfied the jurisdictional requirement for the SAPCR.

The court also held that the father’s competing request for conservatorship did not negate the uncle’s statutory standing. A surviving parent may contest conservatorship on the merits, but that contest does not deprive a nonparent caregiver of standing already established under Section 102.003(a)(9).

Based on that standing determination, the court affirmed the conservatorship judgment appointing the uncle sole managing conservator and the father possessory conservator.

Practical Application

For practitioners representing nonparents, this case is a strong reminder to plead and prove a clean standing theory centered on conduct, chronology, and daily responsibility. If your client is a grandparent, aunt, uncle, sibling, or other relative who has functioned as the child’s real-world caregiver, the record should be built around school routines, medical decisions, bedtime and transportation duties, co-residence history, and the continuity of the placement immediately preceding filing. Do not assume that kinship status or concern about the parent will carry the jurisdictional issue.

For lawyers representing parents, this case underscores the danger of attacking standing with arguments that really go to parental preference or best interest. Those are merits arguments. If the nonparent has six months of actual care, control, and possession ending within the statutory window, the better strategy may be to contest the quality, exclusivity, or timing of that care rather than argue that the parent’s own claim automatically defeats standing.

The opinion is also strategically significant in death-of-a-parent cases. Many of these suits begin in an emergency atmosphere, often with overlapping theories under multiple subsections of Section 102.003. Counsel should plead alternative standing grounds where available, but should still develop evidence that is independently sufficient under subsection (a)(9). That provision is often the most durable because it focuses on actual caregiving rather than labels.

In cases touching property issues, this opinion also shows how misuse of a child’s assets can influence the conservatorship narrative. While mishandling property does not itself create standing, it may become powerful merits evidence on parental judgment, reliability, and fitness to manage the child’s affairs.

Checklists

Pleading Standing for a Nonparent Caregiver

• Plead Section 102.003(a)(9) expressly.
• Allege the precise six-month period of actual care, control, and possession.
• Allege that the six-month period ended not more than ninety days before filing.
• Include concrete facts showing daily caregiving, not just family relationship or frequent contact.
• Plead alternative standing grounds when supported by the facts.
• Attach a detailed affidavit if emergency or temporary relief is sought.

Proving Actual Care, Control, and Possession

• Gather testimony identifying who handled the child’s day-to-day needs.
• Prove where the child slept, attended school, and received medical care.
• Collect school records, attendance records, and caregiver contacts.
• Collect medical records showing who attended appointments and made decisions.
• Use photographs, text messages, calendars, and third-party witness testimony to corroborate the timeline.
• Establish continuity of care through the ninety-day pre-filing window.
• Show the caregiver’s role was substantial and parental in nature, not episodic or temporary.

Defending Against a Standing Challenge

• Separate standing facts from best-interest facts in briefing and argument.
• Emphasize that multiple parties can have standing in the same SAPCR.
• Argue that a parent’s competing conservatorship claim does not nullify otherwise valid statutory standing.
• Frame the case around lived caregiving realities rather than legal labels.
• Preserve all standing evidence in the clerk’s and reporter’s records.

Attacking a Nonparent’s Claimed Standing

• Test the exact start and end dates of the alleged six-month possession period.
• Challenge whether the claimant exercised actual control, not merely helped the parent.
• Examine whether possession was interrupted or too attenuated to be continuous.
• Distinguish co-residence from actual caregiving responsibility.
• Develop evidence that the parent, not the claimant, made core decisions for the child.
• Ensure all standing objections are raised early and preserved throughout the case.

Building the Merits Record Once Standing Exists

• Develop evidence on parental history, stability, and compliance with court orders.
• Document missed visitation, inconsistent housing, and criminal exposure where relevant.
• Present evidence about the child’s medical, educational, and emotional needs.
• Use neutral professionals, such as custody evaluators, to reinforce the narrative.
• Tie property misconduct involving the child’s assets to conservatorship judgment and trustworthiness.
• Keep the court focused on best interest after the standing threshold is crossed.

Avoiding the Appellate Problems Seen in This Case

• Secure and file reporter’s records from all standing-related temporary hearings.
• Make a clear record when the court denies a motion to dismiss for lack of standing.
• Reurge standing objections at trial if necessary, but tailor them to the correct statutory elements.
• Avoid conflating standing with parental presumption or merits defenses.
• Request findings when they may help isolate the basis for the court’s ruling.
• Preserve evidentiary objections tied to the standing timeline and caregiving facts.

Citation

In the Interest of B.M., III, a Child, No. 06-26-00015-CV, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Texarkana Aug. 12, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~38969a7b-052c-4ab1-8ce7-66ea383e5423~~