Texas Court of Appeals Grants Mandamus After Grandparents Fail to Prove Significant Impairment for Standing

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Byrne, 03-25-01007-CV, February 11, 2026.

On appeal from Comal County

Synopsis

The Third Court of Appeals conditionally granted a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to vacate its order finding that paternal grandparents had standing to intervene in a Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (SAPCR). The court determined that the grandparents failed to overcome the constitutionally mandated “fit parent presumption” because their supporting affidavits lacked specific facts demonstrating that the denial of access would result in significant impairment to the child’s physical health or emotional well-being.

Relevance to Family Law

This decision serves as a stark reminder of the rigorous evidentiary threshold required for grandparent standing under Texas Family Code Sections 153.432 and 153.433. For practitioners, this case reinforces that the “significant impairment” standard is a jurisdictional hurdle that cannot be cleared by evidence of a close familial bond, shared history, or even educational and religious involvement. In the wake of this opinion, litigators representing parents should aggressively challenge interventions that rely on qualitative descriptions of the grandparent-child relationship rather than documented, specific threats to the child’s health or well-being.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The underlying litigation involved a Mother (Relator) and Father who were joint managing conservators of their child. Following a history of family violence, the trial court issued a protective order against the Father, naming Mother the sole managing conservator and requiring Father’s access to be supervised by the paternal Grandmother. Later, Father sought to modify the order to regain expanded possession. The paternal grandparents intervened, seeking court-ordered access.

In support of their standing, the grandparents filed affidavits detailing their extensive involvement in the child’s life: they had homeschooled the child, taken him on multiple vacations, supervised his baptism, and provided a “tightly knit” family environment. They further alleged that since Mother terminated their access, the child appeared distressed during phone calls. Mother filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting that the grandparents failed to provide the “specific facts” required by statute to overcome the presumption that a fit parent acts in the child’s best interest. The trial court denied Mother’s plea, and Mother sought mandamus relief.

Issues Decided

The primary issue was whether the trial court abused its discretion by finding that the grandparents had standing to intervene without providing an affidavit stating specific facts—beyond a close bond—demonstrating that the denial of access would significantly impair the child’s physical health or emotional well-being. Additionally, the court addressed whether mandamus is the proper vehicle for challenging an erroneous standing determination in the SAPCR context.

Rules Applied

The court applied Texas Family Code Section 153.432, which requires a grandparent seeking access to file an affidavit alleging, with specificity, that the denial of access would “significantly impair the child’s physical health or emotional well-being.” This statutory requirement is rooted in the “fit parent presumption” established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Troxel v. Granville and adopted by the Texas Supreme Court, which dictates that a court may not interfere with the decisions of a fit parent regarding grandparent access unless that parent’s decision would result in actual harm. The court also applied the standard for mandamus relief, noting that an order erroneously finding standing in a child-custody case is a proper subject for extraordinary relief.

Application

The court’s analysis centered on the distinction between a “beneficial relationship” and “significant impairment.” While the grandparents’ affidavits established a deep and loving bond—highlighted by homeschooling, religious rites, and frequent contact—the court found these facts legally insufficient. The court noted that the grandparents provided no evidence that Mother was unfit or that her decision to limit access had caused more than the “unavoidable sadness” typically associated with the loss of a grandparent’s company.

The court specifically rejected the grandparents’ reliance on the child’s distress during phone calls and their own subjective belief that separation would be harmful. Because the affidavits contained only conclusory allegations of impairment without specific instances of physical or clinical emotional damage, the grandparents failed to meet the jurisdictional requirements of the Family Code.

Holding

The Court of Appeals held that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Mother’s plea to the jurisdiction. The grandparents failed to provide the requisite “specific facts” to overcome the fit-parent presumption, rendering their intervention legally baseless.

The court further held that Mother lacked an adequate remedy by appeal because an erroneous finding of standing subjects parents and children to the emotional and financial toll of litigation that the standing statutes were specifically designed to prevent. The writ of mandamus was conditionally granted, ordering the trial court to vacate its order finding standing and to dismiss the grandparents’ intervention.

Practical Application

For the appellate consultant and the high-stakes litigator, this case emphasizes the “gatekeeping” function of the Section 153.432(c) affidavit. It is no longer—and perhaps never was—sufficient to plead that a grandparent is a “constant presence” in a child’s life. To survive a plea to the jurisdiction, the intervenor must bridge the gap between “loss of a bond” and “impairment of health.” Practitioners should look for evidence of regression, clinical diagnoses, or specific physiological manifestations of distress that can be directly linked to the cessation of the grandparent relationship.

Checklists

Drafting the Grandparent Intervention Affidavit

• Move Beyond the “Best Interest” Standard: Avoid focusing solely on why grandparent access is good for the child; the statute requires proof of why denial is harmful.
• Identify Specific Impairments: Document specific instances of physical illness, significant weight loss, clinical depression, or severe behavioral regression linked to the loss of access.
• Exclude Conclusory Language: Replace phrases like “the child is heartbroken” with “the child has been diagnosed by a licensed therapist with [X] condition resulting from the loss of the relationship.”
• Address the Fit Parent Presumption: Provide facts that might call into question the parent’s “fit” status if the decision-making process is clearly erratic or harmful.

Defeating a Grandparent’s Assertion of Standing

• Immediate Plea to the Jurisdiction: File a plea to the jurisdiction at the earliest opportunity, specifically targeting the lack of factual specificity in the 153.432(c) affidavit.
• Categorize Evidence as “Beneficial Only”: Argue that the intervenor’s evidence (vacations, church, gifts) only proves a “beneficial bond,” which the Texas Supreme Court has deemed insufficient for standing.
• Challenge Subjective Distress: Object to evidence of the child’s “sadness” or “crying” as being the “unavoidable result” of litigation or typical family shifts rather than “significant impairment.”
• Prepare for Mandamus: If the trial court finds standing based on a close bond alone, preserve the record for an immediate petition for writ of mandamus, as this constitutes a clear abuse of discretion.

Citation

In re J.T.J., __ S.W.3d __ (Tex. App.—Austin 2026, orig. proceeding) (No. 03-25-01007-CV).

Full Opinion

The full opinion of the court can be found here: Full Opinion Link

~~0d809d80-2e99-47f1-8351-f84540f6e1fd~~